Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
By moving directly to impeachment, the House gets its best chance of winning the testimony of others
Read This - Josh Marshall
I read through this a number of times before deciding to publish it. But I strongly, strongly recommend it to you. The author of the email is a former federal prosecutor.
<snip>
If the House impeaches the president, the impeachment will be conducted no later than January, and occur under the Senate’s impeachment rules.
The rules provide that the House managers can issue subpoenas to anyone, presumably including Bolton and Mulvaney.
<snip>
I think it is likely that testimony from Mulvaney would be compelled – at least as far as his public statements, and that Bolton and others would be ordered to testify – at least as to some matters. Additional documentary evidence would likely be compelled, as well.
While a majority of the Senate could vote to overturn the Chief Justice’s ruling, any evidentiary/privilege ruling by him would have a presumption that it was correct. As a political matter, it would be difficult for many Republican senators to vote to overturn an evidentiary ruling by the Chief that is based on the law.
<snip>
Chief Justice Roberts will make straight rulings on the evidence and the power of the Senate to compel testimony.
<snip>
I’m agnostic on whether this really represents Pelosi’s or Schiff’s thinking. But I think it’s very on point about the actual dynamics of a Senate trial. It doesn’t assume or rely on Roberts’ being some secret member of the resistance. The decisions will be his in the final analysis in any case, either as the deciding vote on the Supreme Court or as the presiding judge at trial. So fast-forwarding directly to him really loses nothing. The difference is that in the latter case it comes with no delays. And everyone is watching. - TPM
I read through this a number of times before deciding to publish it. But I strongly, strongly recommend it to you. The author of the email is a former federal prosecutor.
<snip>
If the House impeaches the president, the impeachment will be conducted no later than January, and occur under the Senate’s impeachment rules.
The rules provide that the House managers can issue subpoenas to anyone, presumably including Bolton and Mulvaney.
<snip>
I think it is likely that testimony from Mulvaney would be compelled – at least as far as his public statements, and that Bolton and others would be ordered to testify – at least as to some matters. Additional documentary evidence would likely be compelled, as well.
While a majority of the Senate could vote to overturn the Chief Justice’s ruling, any evidentiary/privilege ruling by him would have a presumption that it was correct. As a political matter, it would be difficult for many Republican senators to vote to overturn an evidentiary ruling by the Chief that is based on the law.
<snip>
Chief Justice Roberts will make straight rulings on the evidence and the power of the Senate to compel testimony.
<snip>
I’m agnostic on whether this really represents Pelosi’s or Schiff’s thinking. But I think it’s very on point about the actual dynamics of a Senate trial. It doesn’t assume or rely on Roberts’ being some secret member of the resistance. The decisions will be his in the final analysis in any case, either as the deciding vote on the Supreme Court or as the presiding judge at trial. So fast-forwarding directly to him really loses nothing. The difference is that in the latter case it comes with no delays. And everyone is watching. - TPM
In other words, if I'm reading this correctly, if compelling witness testimony is going to end up in the courts, going all the way to the supreme court with long legal delays getting there, why not just fast-track those decisions directly to Roberts under senate impeachment rules and force him to make the public decision. And if McConnell forces to overturn Roberts' rulings, it will only take a simple majority of the senate to uphold Roberts' decision to compel witnesses and documents the House wants to continue their investigations.
15 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
ability to do more than just rubberstamp whatever McConnell decides. Or that he will absolutely abandon his legal responsibilities and jurisprudence entirely.
And, yes, I understand the temptation to resort to the "all is hopeless" arguments, but it really doesn't help us. It would be more productive to merely debate when the Four Horses of the Apocolypse will arrive. 
